Whenever I read John 1:18 it seems to me like a polemic against Moses. It states:
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.[1]
Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.[2]
This text claims that (1) no one has seen God; (2) except the “only-begotten God”[3]; and (3) this “only begotten God” is in the “bosom” of the Father and has “exegeted” or “explained” God the Father.
Exodus 33:17-23 seems to present Moses as someone who has “seen God”. It reads:
The Lord said to Moses, “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.” Then Moses said, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” Then the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. “Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.” [4]
The anthropomorphisms of this passage allow for some interesting interpretive options. What does it mean to see God’s backside, but not his face? God tells Moses that to see his face is to die.[5]
Moses is part of the discussion in John 1. In 1:14 the Logos/Word becomes flesh (σὰρξ ἐγένετο), tabernacles among “us” (Israel? Humanity? ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν), and he seen by the author(s) of the Prologue. John the Baptist is cited as a witness toward Jesus’ exalted status. The community adds their witness as having received Jesus’ “fullness” of grace. Then the author(s) says that Moses gave the Law, but Jesus the Messiah brought grace (ἡ χάρις) and truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια). Does this mean Moses did not bring grace and truth? Is the first part of that combination in need of emphasis, i.e., Moses did bring truth, but not grace?
In Exodus 34:1ff. the former tablet that contained the Law are replaced now that Moses has seen the backside of God. This leads me to think that the author had this passage in mind when he juxtaposed Jesus and Moses. What is the message of John 1:14-18 as regards Jesus, Moses, the Law, and this narrative here? Thoughts?
[1] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Jn 1:18 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).
[2] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black et al., The Greek New Testament, 4th ed., 248 (Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993).
[3] There are some textual differences here. Some texts read “the only begotten Son”. Some texts read “the only begotten one”. The NA27 editors felt that the evidence for “the only begotten God” was the best reading. This is maintained in the NA28.
[4] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Ex 33:17–23 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).
[5] In addition, one may ask what it means to see the “glory” (MT: כבדך ; LXX: δόξαν) of God!
the archives near Emmaus 
Hadn’t thought of the polemic against Moses before…
dead on.
Just a wild guess: It may be well to investigate the word “but” in Hebrew and Greek (“Then the author(s) says that Moses gave the Law, but Jesus the Messiah brought grace (ἡ χάρις) and truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια).”). Conjunctions in 1st c. CE, given their translation at that time and then 1st c. CE –> 21st c. CE evolution (and translation into English!), may be different than what a 21st century scholar interprets them as. David Bivin’s 1996 article ‘”And” or “In order to” Remarry’ in Jerusalem Perspective Online highlights that particular conjunction’s possible original intent.
Rick, which conjunction in the text are you suggesting I reevaluate in the Greek text?
^%#%^%!!! I apologize, it’s not there in the Greek! You said “Then the author(s) says that Moses gave the Law, > but < Jesus the Messiah brought grace (ἡ χάρις) and truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια)." The implied 'but' is there in the KJV ("[but]"), but it's not there in the NASB. I guess you can't evaluate an implied conjunction. 🙂
No worries, I thought you may have confused my paraphrase with the wording of the text.
I would think that John is appealing to an apophatic idea that God (who is spirit, according to John 4.24) remains hidden until he self-reveals himself in the Son who makes the ‘spirit-God’ (invisible), visible. And that references to Moses and the Israelites, in general, ought to then be understood as prefigural (shadowy) of what was finally and penulitmately made known in Christ, Immanuel.
While Yahweh showed himself, and spoke to Moses; Moses was not Yahweh incarnate, and thus only had the capacity to receive revelation from Yahweh. In contrast, or anti-type, Christ was uniquely God-man, and thus had a unique (even homoousion) relation from within the center of God’s life that the Law through Moses didn’t have left to itself, but what Christ did have as the substance, center, and purpose of God’s life for us and with us. In other words, Moses may have seen and spoken with Yahweh, but only in anticipation and type of what this truly was to mean when the ‘fullness of time’ came, and God the Son was born from the God-bearer, Mary. In short: Christ is the point from which we think from the center of God’s life, juxtaposed with Moses who could only give an anticipatory refraction of this reality given his situation relative to Yahweh’s unfolding redemptive story.
Or, Moses couldn’t actually peer into the interior life of Yahweh the way that the Son could as a hypostasis or person who inhabits and shapes said interior life of Yahweh. I would think that when Jn 1.18 says that no one has seen God, that this obviously must be qualified and nuanced theologically; such that there is a distinction to be made upon the continuum of what “seeing God” means in particular contexts. And the ground of this distinction is that Moses saw God as man, and Jesus saw/sees God as God-man. This is the point I was trying to tease out above in my first comment.
It seems that one thing that is apparent is that in whatever way Moses “saw” God it is not like how Jesus as the Logos “saw” God. It is curious that John makes no effort to differentiate between seeing one way or seeing another. Though he doesn’t deny Moses’ revelatory relationship, he doesn’t use the language of seeing either, which is a staple part of Ex. 33.
Maybe John was presuming that his ‘high Christology’ would do the distinguishing work for him; that he had certain implied readerly expectations shaping his own interpretive categories as he put his Gospel together. Maybe he intentionally missed emphasizing the language of “seeing” from its OT antecedent because he was more concerned with making a theological point that went beyond fitting into literary link or a literary critic’s fancy ;-). Maybe his de-emphasis of the Ex. “seeing” language was also intentional in the sense that, again, he was trying to make a theological point (rhetorically and literarily); i.e. that Jesus does more than just “see”, Jesus actually knows, and in such a way that John could assert that the Son could exegete God … which is a grandiose statement (one that could never characterize Moses).
This is an interesting question to ponder.
Here’s something that might apply here. In the OT text, there are examples of a visible and an invisible Yahweh. I think John’s use of “theos” is a euphemism for “The Father” in that verse.
No one has seen The Father, because many clearly saw Yahweh in human form in the OT text(Jacob wrestling the divine man, the man with a drawn sword leading Joshua into combat, Yahweh sat down and had dinner with Abraham, Ezekiel 1:25-27,etc). Was that pre Incarnate Son? He was seen often.
If the OT is and was Messianic (as some claim), but anti-Messianic translation prejudices have excised or minimized its Messianic elements interpretively, it would be the case of missing the textual difference between the Second and the First person of the trinity.
Rather than it being a polemic against Moses, it would instead be a polemic in favour of a Chistophany (presented to an anti-Messianic crowd).
Bobby
There are a lot of possibilities with this text!
Patrick
Funny thing is I was reading Justin Martyr’s Dialogue wit Trypho over the last week, and he makes the same argument in essence, namely that theophanies are the Logos of God. He calls the Father “the unbegotten God”, which seem to indicate that the Logos is “the begotten God”, which bring John 1:18 to mind.
Andrew
And maybe “polemic” is a strong word. I don’t know, but there does seem to be some effort to exalt Jesus’ relationship with God over that of Moses.
This is another one of those puzzles that can only be solved by not forcing an agreement between the texts. Exodus was written at a different time when the authors had a different view of YHWH. Back then, he was seen as an anthropomorphic being, so Moses and others could literally talk to or see God, who had much more human emotions and responses.
By the time John was written, the conception of God had changed to be more distant and invisible. So in Hebrews, for example, it says the law was given by angels. And I don’t think John meant Jesus literally saw God or literally was YHWH, I think he is saying that Jesus was a perfect representative of God.
http://thebookofdavis.blogspot.com/2013/01/questions-in-john-1.html
Some people will just never get it until they finally must say that Jesus is LORD! O Well.
Gordon
I agree that we shouldn’t force an agreement between texts. My aim is understand what John is doing in his exaltation of the Logos with an eye toward Moses.
Brain, I’m suppose I’m a very keen, but not very (greek) literate observer and find the text you quoted interesting particularly in the reference to Jesus as the “only begotten God”. Could you give me some reference(s) to back this up?
Most of the translations I’ve looked up have “Son” instead of “God” and the KJV uses “theos” for God and “huios” for Son, which seem to be quite distinct. I have found this article, which explains the difficulty with the different renderings of this verse, but I would like to hear your perspective on the matter.
There is a definite possibility that the original wording was “the only-begotten Son”. There is textual evidence for it. Some scholars have argued that it is more likely to be original because Son is a common designation for Jesus while theos is not. But the groups that formed the NA27 and NA28, who are far more competent in textual criticism has retained “the only-begotten God”.
One book I have read that argues for the originality of “the only-begotten God” is this one: http://nearemmaus.com/2012/02/16/book-review-revisting-the-corruption-of-the-new-testament-manuscript-patristic-and-apocryphal-evidence-daniel-b-wallace-ed/
I think I have read Ehrman defend the reading of “the only begotten Son” in a few books.
Thanks, Brian. I’ve been having a hard time with Calvin’s Tritinity theory and of course with Augustine, who he seems to have gotten his ideas from. So I’m looking for scriptures that cannot be understood without accepting the trinity doctrine, which would “prove” that it is valid. If nothing exists in scripture that cannot be understood without Trinitarianism, then I feel it’s not worth keeping. Having said that, I don’t want to hijack this discussion, so I’ll write my thoughts on my own blog in time.
Of course I mean “Calvin’s Trinity” not “Tritinity”! 🙂
This is what Bruce Metzger wrote back in 1994:
“With the acquisition of P66 and P75, both of which read θεός, the external support of this reading has been notably strengthened. A majority of the Committee regarded the reading μονογενὴς υἱός, which undoubtedly is easier than μονογενὴς θεός, to be the result of scribal assimilation to Jn 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9. The anarthrous use of θεός (cf. 1:1) appears to be more primitive. There is no reason why the article should have been deleted, and when υἱός supplanted θεός it would certainly have been added. The shortest reading, ὁ μονογενής, while attractive because of internal considerations, is too poorly attested for acceptance as the text.
“Some modern commentators take μονογενής as a noun and punctuate so as to have three distinct designations of him who makes God known (μονογενής, θεός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς …).
“[It is doubtful that the author would have written μονογενὴς θεός, which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition (Υς/Θς). At least a {D} decision would be preferable. A.W.]”
The group that worked on the UBS GNT gave μονογενὴς θεός a “B” grade, which isn’t quite an “A”, but it remains a pretty solid grade. They felt that important MSS supported this view, but again, it is possible that μονογενὴς υἱός is more original.
What does Calvin say about this text?
Source:
Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.), 169-70 (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994).
I haven’t seen anything that Calvin says about this specific text, but if this is indeed μονογενὴς θεός, then this would be the only scipture I have found that would be hard to explain without a Trinity concept. I’ve been reading Calvin to try to understand the need for a Trinity doctrine, but the more I read, the less convinced I am that we need such a teaching and that it just makes God less accessible and overcomplicated.
Technically, even μονογενὴς θεός doesn’t “require” a Trinitarian framework. One could be a binitarian who accepts a God of two person–Father and Son with the Spirit being something like the substance of God. Someone could maintain Arian views and be comfortable with the idea of an unbegotten, eternal God like the Father and a begotten before time Logos God. I think a lot more goes into framing a Trinitarian view of God than merely collecting texts. I’m sure Calvin is helpful, but it may be worth reading those who were discussing this stuff earlier, like Irenaeus, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, and get a feel if the questions they were addressing provide good reasons for using a Trinitarian framework to discuss God. By the time of Calvin it is assumed.
Thanks Brian, I think I will read some of them. I asked a friend at the Stellenbosch Kweekskool (Seminary) what I could read to get an understanding of why we should believe that God is a Trinity since it isn’t obvious from scripture (although some translations or rather paraphrases seem to inject the thought into the English) and was refered to Calvin. My problem is that Calvin assumes a lot of things in my opinion, so he’s not of much value if one wishes to understand where the trinitarian thinking comes from.
Roland, there are texts that one could argue imply that Jesus is divine, and there are texts that one could argue imply the Holy Spirit is a person rather than a “thing,” or a way to describe God’s activity in the world. But as you note, there is not a single reference in the entire Bible to anything remotely approaching a three-in-one single godhead.
I’ve heard trinitarians argue that the plural used in the creation accounts is an expression of the trinity. Even if the intent was plural and not a royal “we,” there is nothing that would argue that the word implies three persons rather than two or 14 or 67,078.
And the total silence in the Bible should give us pause. Why would God be silent or (at best) vague about something so crucial?
I just stumbled on your blog. The story of Moses seeing the backside of God on Mt Sinai was an important story for St Gregory of Nazianzus, particularly in his dispute with Eunomius. I have been blogging on Gregory for the past couple of months. You may find some of this material of interest: http://afkimel.wordpress.com/. I have yet fo find Gregory reflecting on the importance of the Incarnation in relationship fo the vision of God; but in Or 39.13 he says that God assumes human flesh so that “so that the incomprehensible one might be comprehended.”
Thank you for sharing that insight. I have read introductory material and excerpts from Gregory of Nazianzus, but not enough to have been aware of his interactions with this story. I will try to go over and browse what you’ve written.